---

Broads Authority Bill (By Order)

The broads are an important area nationally. They are important for their history, appearance and biodiversity, and for the opportunity that they provide for recreation. On that basis, they fully deserve their designation. The reason why the area is not designated as a national park has been dealt with. It is to do with the Sandford principle and the extra duty imposed on the Broads Authority for navigation. Other national parks have two duties: to conserve those elements that contribute to their designation and to promote the enjoyment and understanding of the national park. Under the Sandford principle, if there is a conflict between those two duties, the duty to conserve should have priority. Obviously, the duty on the Broads Authority in respect of navigation makes that a little more difficult than for other areas, although I am not convinced that that cannot be resolved. I have visited the broads on several occasions, mainly as a member and sometime chairman of the Brecon Beacons national park. I attended national park annual conferences in the broads and enjoyed the whole broads area and also meeting the entire family of national parks. It became clear to me that the broads were a valued member of that family. I was most impressed with the work that it did with the university of East Anglia on developing management schemes to improve the water quality of the broads, which had deteriorated largely because of nutrification—the build-up of phosphates in the sediments as a result of intensive farming. The removal of silt and sediments remains an important issue, and one that must be addressed through dredging. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill in that it gives the authority increased powers to carry out both its conservation work and its duty in respect of navigation. Some people are concerned about certain elements of the Bill. The word ““draconian? has been used on a number of occasions in reference to the power to enter land, to enter a vessel and to direct the master of a vessel to a particular course of action for that vessel, while the master remains responsible for it. Those issues can perhaps be overcome in Committee. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made the important point that the Broads Authority and national parks in general should consult widely within the communities in which they operate. The perception from time to time of people who live in national parks and in the Broads Authority area is that the authority is not really accountable to the people who live there. Yes, it has a national responsibility because of its designation, but it also has a responsibility toward the people who live there and the local economy. The perception to which I refer arises from the fact that no members of the authority or of national park committees are directly elected to the authority. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Norwich, North say that there should be more consultation. The suggestion, which also pleases me, is that members of town and parish councils be considered for membership of the authority. Every single national park in England has that system, and it seems to work well in building bridges and understanding between the town and parish councils—the real basis of the democratic system in this country—and the Broads Authority, which has to do a really difficult job in balancing the different and conflicting views. Perhaps I might go a little further. I have long believed that an element of national park committees—and, indeed, of the authority—could be directly elected. The broads has a population of about 5,000, which seems a nice constituency to elect perhaps one or two members—or an element, at least, to be decided locally—to sit on the authority. That would make the authority more directly accountable to the people who live and work in the area. This is not an entirely new idea; it has been adopted in the two newly designated national parks in Scotland. Scotland was very late in joining the national park family, but it is making a huge contribution to the development of the purposes of national parks. When direct elections were initiated in Scotland, people put their names forward for election—between three and five people stood for each of the electoral divisions—and people turned out to vote because they could see that the authorities were going to have a real influence in their lives and in the local community. I do not know whether any of these issues can be addressed at this late stage—be it in Committee, through secondary legislation or through a statutory instrument—but they are certainly worthy of consideration. Such elections would make the authority more accountable to local people and increase their trust in it. We Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, although one or two points need ironing out. I was responsible for setting up a management agreement for Llangorse lake—that work was on a much smaller scale than the Broads Authority—which is the largest freshwater lake in south Wales and for all I know is larger than any lake in southern England. I had to try to reconcile the different interests of the power-boaters, the water-skiers, the yachting fraternity, the canoeists and the conservationists. The lake is a registered site of special scientific interest, and a registered common, which made matters tricky. In general, we support the Bill, but we feel that the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the authority and to make it more accountable to local people.